Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, DECISION is hereby given as follows: 1. Declaring the coverage of Lot 13333 under Operation Land Transfer improper; 2. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Cebu to cause the cancellation of E.P.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, DECISION is hereby given as follows: 1. Declaring the coverage of Lot 13333 under Operation Land Transfer improper; 2. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Cebu to cause the cancellation of E.P. No. 176987 covered by OCT No. 6187, E.P. No. 176986 covered by OCT No. 6188, issued in the name of (sic) of Manuel Amaya, Sr., Ricardo Mercado and Jesus Mercado, respectively; 3. Ordering the Land Bank of the Philippines to turn over the amount of money paid (sic) private respondents to them in favor of Conrada Almagro; 4. Dismissing the ejectment case filed by plaintiff against herein private respondents for lack of merit; 5. Ordering the MARO concerned to assist the parties in the execution of lease rentals on the subject landholdings. RARAD Arrieta predicated his case disposition on the finding that the disputed portions of the subject lot are primarily devoted to vegetable cultivation, which, thus, brings them outside of OLT coverage. In substantiation, he cited and drew attention to the following documentary and testimonial evidence: (1) the Certifications issued by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) and the Municipal Assessor of Dalaguete, Cebu dated September 27, 1995 and October 4, 1995, respectively, attesting that subject lot is primarily devoted to vegetables since 1972; (2) the parallel admission of respondents made in their January 29, 1996 Answer in DARAB Case No. VII-C-90-95; (3) respondent Manuels December 17, 1996 affidavit stating that he raised vegetables during the pangulilang and pang-enero seasons, resorting to corn crops only during the panuig season; and (4) Manuels testimony given in response to clarificatory questions propounded by the Hearing Officer on December 17, 1996 that the corn he planted on his claimed portion was only for his consumption. Taking cognizance, however, of the agricultural nature of the disputed parcels and the existing land tenancy relation between the private respondent, on one hand, and Conrada, on the other, the RARAD declined to proceed with the prayed ouster of respondents from their respective landholdings. To the RARAD, respondents act of stopping payment of land rental at some point was justified under DAR MC No. 6, Series of 1978, hence, cannot, under the premises, be invoked to justify an ouster move. Respondent spouses, et al., appealed to the DARAB Proper. Ruling of the DARAB On October 19, 2004, in DARAB Case Nos. 6858-6859, DARAB issued a Decision upholding the validity of the issuance of the EPs to Manuel et al., thus effectively recognizing their tenurial rights over portions of Lot No. 13333. The fallo of the DARAB Decisions reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision is SET ASIDE and judgment is hereby rendered: 1.) UPHOLDING the validity and efficacy of EP Nos. 176987, 176986, and 176985 issued in the names of Manuel Amaya, Sr., Ricardo Mercado and Jesus Mercado, Sr. respectively; 2.) DISMISSING the above-mentioned complaint